LALITABEN VIKAS FOUNDATION,RAJKOT vs. ITO EXEMPTION WD 1, RAJKOT

Learned Senior DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel, however, he stated that assessee was negligent during the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, a cost of Rs.500/- may be imposed on the assessee, which may be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.

I have heard both the parties. Before me, the assessee has explained the sufficient cause for delay of 44 days in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A). The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In considering the condonation petition, it is to be remembered that statutes conferring a right of appeal must be construed in furtherance of justice and the provision limiting the time for bringing an appeal must be liberally interpreted, so that the party pursuing such remedy allowed to him by the law is not non- suited on mere technicalities [Chaman Lal Bros. P. Ltd. v. The Punjab State, (1961) 12 STC 643 (Punj)]. I am of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed to act in leisure and make a mockery of enacted law, because law & provisions are laid down to benefit both sides of litigation. Be that as it may, I have to do justice and the Hon’ble ITA NO. 882/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 17-18 “4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.” When I weigh these two aspects then the side of justice becomes heavier and casts a duty on me to deliver justice. I, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest its case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.